Saturday, December 5, 2009

In recent years there has been a linguistic movement by some academics against using the term homophobia and replacing it with terms like sexualism or sexual prejudice which are considered broader and more appropriate with the growing list of sexual and gender self identifications.

For one the definition of homophobia is a fear of homosexuals or homosexual orientation, which is not true of all anti-gay people. The common line from so called "homophobes" is that "they have no issue with homosexuals, and even have homosexual friends" when defending their dislike or opposition to queer rights. The other dilemma is that many people associate homophobia as being exclusive to the discussion of gay and lesbian orientation, while leaving out bisexuals and transgender minorities.

Sexualism or sexual prejudice is the predisposition to thinking heterosexuality is the only norm, it is the concept of consciously embracing heteronormativity although is not synonymous with the term.

What do you make of the whole idea of bedding the term homophobia for something more inclusive such as sexualism or sexual prejudice? Does this term unfairly exclude transgender people whose discrimination against them is on the basis of gender or should gender issues have a separate word like transphobia or transsexual prejudice?

15 comments:

The problem is that homophobia is only now starting to be recognised in the 'real' world. Changing it will cause confusion and it will make the LGBTQ community schism again. In fact the very initials that I've just used are a perfect example. Is it GLB, LGB, GLBT, LGBT? Should we add the Q, should we not? There's no consensus - even between the groups. I know that's because we're a disparate and motley group of people with completely different ethoses, needs and desires but do we really need to show that even more?

It creates schisms like all things, but is that necessarily bad if we have a multitude of words to describe what we are talking about? I never particularly liked the term homophobia. How many people are really that scared of gays, ahhh a gay I may have caught the gay germ? Homophobia is a fear, I think most "homophobes" aren't afraid of gays, they just hate them.

I'm generally not a fan of the term "homophobia." I think it is unnecessarily divisive and polarizing. My own impression is that there are a lot of people who genuinely aren't "homophobic" but do have beliefs that impact LGBT people in very negative ways. By lumping all sorts of opposition together into one category that etymologically means (and is sometimes defined as) "fear of homosexuality," it tends to alienate people in the middle who are most likely to be persuadeable to become allies. And it helps enable them to justify to themselves that their beliefs aren't "homophobic."

Anon there are people who say straight people can be queer if they are allies, into BDSM, or just non-heteronormative.

Pretzel how do you feel it makes them less likely to be allies? If they don't want to be labeled as homophobes wouldn't they be more likely to be allies to prove otherwise? Maybe I didn't get your point.

I think throwing around terms like "homophobia" do us an injustice when attempting to characterize opponents on issues like marriage equality. There are many who believe in equal rights for gay people, but just don't want the term marriage to apply to them. In cases these like, I believe the term "heterosexist" - the valuing of heterosexual couplings more than homosexual ones - is a more accurate description of who we're dealing with.

There are times and places that are more appropriate for each word. If we become more precise in our language, then we can become more precise in our arguments. However, it can become unwieldy, as in the LGBTQIIAA etc. acronym, however, that is not to say that we should not use it or it is not appropriate in certain contexts. We just need to be more aware of our audience and our targets.

I prefer the term 'Queerphobia' over 'Homophobia' as Queer encompasses all non-binary gender and non-heteronormative / non-traditional sexual behaviour. Considering that BDSM heterosexuals are just as likely to be oppressed and discriminated against it seems a good idea to include them under this umbrella term.

Although, it would be better if we could replace the suffix '-phobia' with something else because not all anti-queer folks are "afraid" of queers. They have some inherent prejudice or personal conviction that propels them to act against anything that is pro-queer.

Sexualism seems like an improvement at first thought but it really isn't that better because it leaves out gender and trans discrimination.

To me, the term "sexualism" is confusing because it could be construed to mean discriminating against someone based on any sexual trait that person has, and have nothing to do with being queer, transexual, or non-heterosexual at all.

However, as a bisexual, I would love to see some term for anti-queer bias, prejudice and hatred that includes all of us, because it certainly affects all of us, not just gay people. I just don't think "sexualism" is that term.

Sexualism as a term is vague. Homophobia is self explanitory. It is also accurate. The fear of homosexuality is at the bottom of all anti-GLBT hate and bias including anti-trans and anti-intersex bias. As an intersexed man I can attest to this. Example: I've argued that I should be allowed to marry anyone because I can have heterosexual sex with everyone. Homophobes instantly take the bait and contradict me by arguing that I should be allowed to marry no one because I can't avoid having homosexual sex with everyone.

We don't need to train the world to a new term, and certainly not to a watered down one like "Sexualism". Homophobia works just fine.

The LGBT/Queer/Allied/and so on community despratly needs to stop making language an issue. Right now we need to stop accusing our Allied bretheren whether they be gay, trans, straight, bi and so on as being exclusionatory. When there are people in the world working for the systematic imprisonment and execution of queer people we need to understand that language is only exclusionary if we make it exclusionary. The use of language to obscure identity and issues may be appealing within the LGBT community as away to upset the gender-language paradigm, but right now we need to be moving away from the high minded ideals of destroying the binary gender system and freaking out the squares and simplify our language, messages, and goals in order to open up our doors to any possible allies. Substantiative change is rapidly approaching and demanding allies conform to our mindset, vis a vie language we will lose. We need to unite as a community, even if its under the banner of "The Gay Community". Because when the "Gay Community" wins the right for all people to marry whom they love, when they win the right for all people to live and work without fear of punishment and harassment due to their gender identity or sexual orientation, the day we can see hate-crimes perpetrators locked up tight. These will be good days. These will be successes and whether they come from the Queer Community the Gay Community or the LGBT Movement it will still be a good day.

I say rather than try to label the opposition this or that we need to end this view of the Gay Community as a persequted minority and become and community dedicated to human rights for all. The right to work in a good environment, the right to marry, the right to have protection by and from the law, the right to be a parent and the right to live a good, productive life are not Gay rights they are rights for all. And a rose by any other name would still fight for those rights.